My son and i went to the movie tonight. It was more annoying than entertaining. I don't think I will waste my time with P. 2 when it comes out.Apparently Peter Jackson doesn't think JRR Tolkien was a good enough story teller. So he re-wrote most of the story to make more Hollywood than Middle Earth.

Are you a good study of the novel? Or did you want a big-bang Hobbit-all-in-one type movie with no depth?

Because side-tracks with Radagast, the Necromancer, and the like will appeal to die-hard fans for sure, but will probably confuse the once-through reader.

The back-stories of middle earth in the Simirillion and in the other various notes by Tolkien are interwoven throughout and a real director and story-teller would want to bring those in and develop them, even if they're only slightly mentioned in the novel.

Slater so what you're saying is there are more details. I tried to read the Simirillion. Though read. Cool that someone could dig out some material to flesh out the story. Haven't seen the movie yet. Maybe I'll read the book again before I go. No Simirillion though. I don't want to hurt my head.

Every director is going to take some creative license, otherwise you're just taking a book and putting it into action, Books and movies are two very different mediums. They don't always translate perfectly.

Plus, if you were a creative director, would you want to have your hands tied and just redo the book and put it into frames per second? Where is the creativity in that? You gotta give them some room.

Good lord, can you imagine if the L Of R movies had all that hiking and nature narrative, or if Jackson was faithful to the Hobbit to a fault, how slow it would go through some parts with all the walking and camping and walking and raining and...

I think going into it, if you know it isn't going to be exactly the same as the book, you may just enjoy it a little more.

I didn't get through the Silmarilian either. Maybe it's time to give another go.

I'm anxious to see Radagast the Brown! Tolkien mentioned 5(?) Wizards in Middle E. We see a lot of Gandalf and Saruman, Radagast is mentioned briefly and nothing is said of the others in LOTR, that I ever saw in Many readings. Maybe having hobbit movies that draw on the various other sources will give me the moxie for the Silmarilian reading.

I'll have middle school students tomorrow who will have seen this. I look forward to their take on this.

According to early reviews, the highly anticipated new film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which opens in theaters Friday, features an extended 53-minute-long scene in which the protagonist, Bilbo Baggins, decides on what to pack for his trip to defeat the evil dragon Smaug.

The film, one of three upcoming Lord Of The Rings prequels based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien, reportedly suspends its main narrative action for almost a third of its screen time while the main character rummages through his house trying to figure out what clothing and personal possessions he will need for his journey.

The Hobbit was quite good. Excellent trolls of course, they're so often misrepresented in popular culture. Bilbo Baggins is well portrayed, as is Gandalf. The dwarves are each given some character, which works well. They take a lot of backstory from Tolkien's other writings, to flesh out the film, which mostly works OK. They also take considerable liberties, e.g. in how the Elves, Orcs and Wargs are portrayed, and moving people, events and things around. There's also far too much in the way of action/battle scenes - they're quite overdone.

The best part was Bilbo and Gollum doing their riddle game, and of course Gollum always steals the show. (He's even better than the trolls!) The film ended with the company being rescued by the great eagles.

It's quite well done, and worth seeing, but I think they could have made it in two films, and jettisoned a lot of the special effects and battle scenes.

I read The Lord of the Rings way back when. And while I thought it was okay as a teenage male adventure fantasy, it never struck me as anything more than that. It seemed to describe a universe in which women didn't really exist.

Which is okay for an eccentric British academic, but as a billion-selling Great-Work-Of-Literature?

Nope. They have apparently invented a female elf character, to be added somewhere in The Hobbit. Tolkien's fantasy world doesn't bear too close an examination, however entertaining it can sometimes be.

I read The Lord of the Rings way back when. And while I thought it was okay as a teenage male adventure fantasy, it never struck me as anything more than that. It seemed to describe a universe in which women didn't really exist.

Haven't read the books but will say that Liv Tyler is an all time hot movie elf. mmm

For those more interested in the story than the visuals, the view from the other side, as told in 'The Last Ring-bearer', by Kirill Yeskov, is worth reading. There's a translation available here: http://ymarkov.livejournal.com/270570.html